A strike UAV could be based on the new Cruise Missile XR:  

 

REcovery could be a parachute with retro-rockets and.or flotation/air bags.  Think soviet space capsule recovery or mars landing type systems:  both existing technologies that are simpler and far more mission-flexible than a carrier landing or runway-only system.

 

Reduce the payload to 1800 lbs...not a lot, but 6x 250 SDB can crater a runway or take out 6 hardened aircraft shelters or radar installations.  And a 1800 lb thermobaric bomb will really make a mess out of the Ministry of Whatever building.

 

We would hav reusable flexibility or kamakazi one-way capability.

 

Even if we scratch the reusable aspect the ability to hit multiple targets with a single missile, gives even greater bang for the buck when a 250 - 500 lb bomb is sufficient to get the job done. 

A cruise missiles is designed to operate at low altitude and is not the best platform to try and fit some sort of launcher for small bombs with extremely limited range when dropped at low altitude.  It's also not the best platform to attempt to recover given it's designed to fly a one way mission and having to fly back out of enemy airspace in order to attempt recovery will just cut it's range in half.

 

Turning a cruise missile into a UCAS indicates every reason why an actual UCAS would be superior in this role.  A cruise missile is designed to penetrate enemy air defenses by among other things flying at very low altitude.  For the mission as outlined an actual aircraft dropping GBU-53's best serves the requirements.  Whether it's an MQ-9, F-35, heavy bomber, etc.

Pop and drop?

 

2.  Tandem warhead weapons do not rely upon kinetic energy for penetration

 

3.  Range?  2000 km gives 300 km stand-off and 700 km in-land range.  Not many targets outside of China or Russia are that far inland. 

 

I'm still stuck on cruise missiles being ever so much cheaper than maintaining aircraft, training and retaining pilots and crews, and the airbase/carrier assets for many first 48 hour missions.  NOt to mention no pilots at risk.

 

Take Syria as an example.  Cruise/UAVs can take out many of their formidable air defenses and all of their airbase capabilities with zero risk of US casualties/POWs.  

 

Ditto the initial action on Iran...take out as much air defense as possible with cruise missiles/UAV before manned aircraft move in to deliver the bunker-busters. 

      
   US B52s can fly, and return unoberved, from the midwest to Iran's rural nuclear weapons factories located underground in huge bunkers with megabombs that can penetrate 200ft of concrete.  What are we waiting for, Israeli covering action?

^^ Pretty much, other than there being a major diplomatic breakthrough I can't see this going on much longer to be honest, they've found HEU at >20% purity, that should tell Israel all it needs to know, you can't do that by accident and the percentages are misleading in the sense that further enrichment is relatively straightforward once the initial processes are in operation.

 

It's going to be a big operation, which is possibly why Syria, for now at least, is being largely left alone for the time being. 

 

R 

B-52s can't fly anywhere unobserved:  they have the radar cross section of a football stadium, and we can't count on someone in Russia calling someone in Iran once a bunch are observed taking off.

 

Plus what will military strikes do anyway?

1.  Galvanize Iranian public opinion to rally to the flag.

2.  Destroy any chance of extending a real peace with Egypt

3.  Set Lebanon on fire again after Hez missiles fly and Israel is forced to respond

4.  Set the world into deeper recession as oil supplies are crimped and prices skyrocket:  Iran will swing back at Saudi Arabia and hit every oil tanker they can see.

 

But most of all...

 

5.  Is not a permanent solution.  Iran will be more determined than ever:  no nuclear country has ever been bombed by a foreign power:  not North Korea, not Pakistan, not Israel, no one else.  What's the lesson;  Have nukes, you must be left alone to a certain degree. 

B-52s can't fly anywhere unobserved:  they have the radar cross section of a football stadium, and we can't count on someone in Russia calling someone in Iran once a bunch are observed taking off.

 

You're suggesting Russia/someone has a comprehensive worldwide radar network?

Plus what will military strikes do anyway?

1.  Galvanize Iranian public opinion to rally to the flag.

 

Possibly. 

2.  Destroy any chance of extending a real peace with Egypt

 

Or prevent Egypt/Saudi Arabia & Turkey from following suit once Iran has a credible weapon. 

3.  Set Lebanon on fire again after Hez missiles fly and Israel is forced to respond

 

Another sad consequence of being surrounded by religious crazies with weapons. 

4.  Set the world into deeper recession as oil supplies are crimped and prices skyrocket:  Iran will swing back at Saudi Arabia and hit every oil tanker they can see.

 

Iran won't get to do much against Saudi Arabia, they'll hit or mine a few tankers but once their air force is toast so is their naval capability, don't count on their anti shipping capability surviving very long. 

 

But most of all...

 

5.  Is not a permanent solution.  Iran will be more determined than ever:  no nuclear country has ever been bombed by a foreign power:  not North Korea, not Pakistan, not Israel, no one else.  What's the lesson;  Have nukes, you must be left alone to a certain degree.

 

The only permanent solution is a regime change or demonstrating the will to use force to secure the objective of dismantling the threat, what is the alternative here? If Iran gets a nuclear capability it will be become a race to the bottom for the whole region, once the world shows it is not willing to meaningfully prevent such developments the floodgates will be open. Some might see this as inevitable, but the consequences exist for a continual state of near-escalation, even North Korea is not ruled by religious clerics, Kim Jong Il was highly "rational" by the standards of Iran's religious power structure. 

 

I simply don't think Israel is willing (and I don't blame them personally) to live under the continual threat of annihilation, in some respects we all do with MAD but we trust that Putin/Medvedev (as another example) operate as logical entities, whether or not their interests coincide with ours -  does Iran's power structure have the necessary safeguards? I doubt it.

 

You are right in that a lasting solution is not forthcoming, but once we enter an era of several more semi-theocratic ME states arming themselves with nuclear warheads we'll be in a volatile situation, you can imagine the continual sense of escalation and warlike rhetoric as Iran/Turkey/Egypt vie for regional supremacy, the effects on markets and oil prices would be acute.  The Iraq war has totally undermined public trust in threat-analysis, I just can't see a world where Iran is allowed to acquire the means to dominate the region as a particularly stable one but accept that a permanent solution doesn't appear forthcoming, military or otherwise. 

 

R 

 

 

There is a large difference between having a nuclear device and being able to deliver it.  How many years of testing would this step alone require?

 

And of course all of these arguments are assuming that the concept of MAD simply doesn't apply to Iran.  They are willing to face CERTAIN annihilation just to bomb Israel.  Really? 

 

20% uranium is nasty enough to make dirty bombs that would be quite disruptive to civilian life.  If Iran were so dead-set on attacking Israel why haven't they smuggled a few suitcases full of the stuff and smuggled them in to Lebanon or Gaza, and then on into Tel Aviv?  Or just poison water supplies, or release radioactive material up-wind and let it drift and poison wide swaths of Israel?

 

Israel could hardly launch nukes against such an attack...

 

The world needs to keep it's collective panties on and remember that Pakistan already has nukes and hosted Bin Laden.  I don't remember any threats about bombing them... 

 

 

 

 

There is a large difference between having a nuclear device and being able to deliver it.  How many years of testing would this step alone require?

 

It requires warhead miniaturisation and a delivery vehicle, neither is massively complex once the fissile material is in adundance, the amount of HEU required is well under 100kg and missile designs exist already, to a bidder with the resources of Iran entire schematics (and scientists) may be available. The warhead is the key, it can be smuggled or delivered by non-conventional means, even if a capable delivery vehicle takes far longer to emerge.

 

 

And of course all of these arguments are assuming that the concept of MAD simply doesn't apply to Iran.  They are willing to face CERTAIN annihilation just to bomb Israel.  Really? 

 

 

The Ayatollah will be dead soon anyway, you judge his actions as rational because you presume that the theocratic nature of his rule is just a farce or device, what if you are wrong?

 

20% uranium is nasty enough to make dirty bombs that would be quite disruptive to civilian life.  If Iran were so dead-set on attacking Israel why haven't they smuggled a few suitcases full of the stuff and smuggled them in to Lebanon or Gaza, and then on into Tel Aviv?  Or just poison water supplies, or release radioactive material up-wind and let it drift and poison wide swaths of Israel?

 

In reality radiological devices (unless booted by a nuclear detonation) are far more limited in effect than in the popular conciousness, yes, they could try  all of the above but as you said, it would result in a certain set of terminal repercussions. 

 

 

Israel could hardly launch nukes against such an attack...

 

Rubbish. 

 

 

The world needs to keep it's collective panties on and remember that Pakistan already has nukes and hosted Bin Laden.  I don't remember any threats about bombing them... 

 

But the dynamics of Pakistan, though regrettable, are not quite the same, there is a civilian and military power base that exist simultaneously, with each paying a degree of lip service to the other, western aid pays to ensure that the system has a a degree of stability. 

 

Surely you can see that the number of states that are nuclear-armed increases the probability of an exchange exponentially, add 3-5 theocratic regimes to that figure and you get more risk, simple, you can't always rely on the fact that nuclear-armed states have tended to hesitate as a benchmark for future behaviour, not when those states feature dictatorial figures close to their own ends whose radical ideologies are based on the concept of martyrdom. 

 

To take it to extremes, if every state has nuclear capability do you not see the likelihood of a major (and escalating) exchange as a simple case of exponentially increased probability?

 

As I said, I would much prefer for diplomacy to lead to a lasting solution, unfortunately it appears that it is merely a smokescreen.

 

R